OBJECTIONS TO LAND TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 107, 7 May 1924, Page 11

OBJECTIONS TO LAND TAX.

I EFFECT OK INDUSTRIES. I VARIATION IN VALUATION. (Bj Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHIUSTCHUHCH, Tuesday. fining evidence before the Taxation Commission to-day, Hiehard M. D. Morton, prcsidc.t of the Canterbury \ and P Association, said land tax was a'class tax and an evil example of the capital tax levied on primary industries. The remedy, if capital was to be taxed, was a property tax-one levied on all landed' property. The invention of unimproved values to suit land tax methods was merely an aggravation ot | the evil, since the improvement of land automatically advanced its unimproved lvalue, the latter being the capital value : less that of the improvements. Further. some improvements were not held to be. , such after a time. The tax had fulfilled i to excess its purpose of breaking uh lar-e estates. It could not be equitably | assessed throughout the Dominion. The | result was very uneven, being influenced < by the personalities of the valuers and the «tate of financial affairs at the time !of valuation. In towns and cities the j ! taxation of unimproved values tended j to force the subdivision of land into , minute ureas, and the poorer landlord I who could not afford to erect tall buildings was at a disadvantage as compared with the man who held a little land land put his money into buildings. The hind tax was also opposed by Mr Ebenezer Hay. a sheep farmer. He said it w:.s manifestly unfair that a farmer who made nothing ill » particular year j !«hmild he compelled to borrow money to j ~HV the tax. The tax on unimproved i values was really a tax on improve- j ments. Valuers did not seem able to I resist, tlic influence of the improvements, j H was suggested by Mr. Begg that a ■ farmer mipht be able to evade income tax by making many improvements to I his property and showing a small income. j Similarly 'where the land was being I exhausted prut of his income would be made up out of capital. The Commissioner of Taxes remarked j that except in the case of the gn.zier. which it was hoped to meet in the course lof time, a farmer had In make income 'before he put it into improvements. A Igraaier could improve his property by j reducing his stuck and allowing the grass I to seed' I Bpeaking in regard to company taxation. Henry Worrall. mill manager for I jT> IT. Brown and Sons, flour millers, said . Itlie present system should be retained. ;In practice it seemed quite satisfactory. I The amount of the tax. and not the basis !mi which it was levied, seemed to be the j i cause of dissatisfaction. The present | ! (tvstcin certainly gave rise to inequali-| ties, but as every other RUBJjested alter--1 native possessed some disadvantage or :! other it appeared to'be wiser to retain a •: system which had already been tested.] ; ; Anv drastic change in the incidence of j company taxation would be likely to j " upset the balance in respect to channels I ■'■ in which capital was invested, and might •jlend to very serious consequences. '.'■ The commission finished its Christ- ■ i church sitting and will resume in Auck- ' I land.